AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 29.01.2020 passed in case no. 65/16-17, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest on all the previous ten hearing occasions as well. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It next transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rejected the assessee’s business expenditure deduction of Rs.2,64,79,860/-; in assessment order dated 29.03.2016 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion, reading as under:
“9.Ground No. 4:- This ground of appeal is related to receipt of discount reversed. The appellant did not furnish any documents/averments relating to the deduction claimed. In this regard it may be mentioned here that the onus of proving any deduction, squarely lies on the appellant-assessee.
9.1During the year under consideration, the appellant had in the computation of income filed shown or deduction of Rs.2,64,79,860/- which was claimed as a business expenditure. Ordinarily, an expenditure is allowed by the A.O. provided the said expenditure is a non-capital in nature and it is connected with and is incidental to the trade and business. The appellant did not discharge the burden of proof cast on him. At the assessment stage, no evidence was adduced in support of the deduction claimed. In fact, the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the party with whom the appellant-assessee had business transaction. Not getting reply from the said party, the Assessing Officer gave an opportunity to the appellant to produce the said party. The appellant did not avail of the opportunity. Moreover, it was made clear during the appellate proceedings that the appellant was prosecuting the matter pertaining to the validity of notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act. No evidence was produced in support of claim of deduction.
9.2From the above mentioned discussion, it is evident that the motive, purpose and objective of the said deduction claimed by the appellant in its return of income remained unverifiable, both at the time of assessment as well as appellate proceedings. Thus, taxing authorities have been prevented from looking into the nature of transaction. The onus cast upon the appellant remains undischarged, as laid down in Siddhomal & Sons vs. CIT, 122 ITR 839, 844 (Del.) No facts/circumstances material to the determination of the nature of income was placed before the authorities to justify the claim. Accordingly, the Ground of appeal No. 4 is also dismissed.”
Suffice to say, we notice with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the assessee all along has failed to prove its impugned business expenditure deduction claim relating to M/s. Saroj Bharti Enterprises (SBE) not only on its own but also the latter had failed to even respond to section 133(6) notice as well. That being the case, we hardly see any reason to interfere with both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings disallowing its impugned claim. Rejected accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.